Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Thanks for the heads up, 117Avenue. I would also urge other editors to watchlist Samsamcat's talk page and to keep an eye out for him, as edits such as this and this give a pretty good idea about his ability to work with other editors. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Should population history tables be a minimum requirement for GA and FA candidates?
Please be sure to research and see if you can find information on how Air India Flight 182 impacted those communities? How many families were affected? Were any Canadian Indian community leaders on board? I also know that Canadian officials made condolences to India without acknowledging the Canadian Indian community.
There was a CBC documentary I saw which involved relatives in Vancouver, Toronto, and then Montreal recounting what they said to their loved ones before they boarded the plane.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Those titles in Canadian English would be East Indians in Toronto or Indo-Canadians in Toronto, East Indians in Montreal or Indo-Canadians in Montreal, East Indians in Vancouver or Indo-Canadians in Vancouver; that we use "East Indian" and "Indo-Canadian" to also include (usually) Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan people complicates that a bit further. In any case, the only information on the impact on the Indo-Canadian community that can be used here has to be from reliable sources, and if opinion/analysis should be stated as such i.e. as opinion/analysis, properly quoted/paraphrased and cited. And any condolences acknowledging "Canadians" implicitly includes all the Indo-Canadians on board. Condolences to India were because it was an Indian airline with Indian citizens on board; condolences to Canadians, again, implicitly includes Indo-Canadians. As for your request for people to research and expand the article, your better place to request that is on Talk:Air India Flight 182.Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If those titles are better, go for it! Thank you for providing guidance, Skookum! I am aware that Google Books is often a great resource to use to research the ethnic groups, and I agree that it is crucial to get the local definitions of terms. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Did I say I wanted to start those titles? No. Indo-Canadians already exists, major city or by-province breakdowns have not yet been started so far as I am aware. I have quite enough to write as it is.Skookum1 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Re Vancouver, a better title, since many Indo-Canadians in BC aren't limited to the city or even the GVRD as far as the Lower Mainland goes (Abbotsford, Mission et al not being part of the GVRD) and also spread throughout various towns and cities around the province, Indo-Canadian history in British Columbia would be the best approach.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Whether one should create an article focusing on BC in general of Vancouver (or the metro area) in particular depends on what the sources focus on/say. If the sources focus mainly on the city and/or the metro area, then make it on Vancouver. If they focus on the province in general, make it on the province. If sources on both the city and the province exist, then one can make both articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
"One" can do whatever they like; sources may focus on only one town, or on one immigrant family; whether sources covering the whole province exist apposite to those focussing only on one city (or on Greater Vancouver, which is 20-odd municipalities) is not that relevant to starting such an article. For a fact, Sikh life in BC is not just concentrated in Surrey and Abbotsford and South Vancouver/Richmond but also in Quesnel and other northern mill-towns, the Okanagan, and around Vancouver Island in significant numbers. Maybe you should read up on all this before opining about what sources may or may not say; and it's as if you're asking/demanding that such an article be created, without doing so yourself....or even really knowing much about the subject in regional terms to start with.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
"or even really knowing much about the subject in regional terms to start with." Skookum, I have created countless similar articles about "ethnicity in city" subjects. I know how such subjects are generally written and I am aware of what such an ethnicity article would look like. Humans think about things in terms of cities. As for:
"it's as if you're asking/demanding that such an article be created, without doing so yourself" - Well, yes. And... This is a reasonable thing to do, this is a good thing and you should encourage more people to do this. Why? Because I have limited time and I can't write this encyclopedia by myself. I've written/started countless ethnicity articles already. I've put my share in. I have the god-given right to give my recommendations/ideas to a WikiProject.
You've started a lot of ethnicity articles, so what? YOu came here indicating you didn't know which terminology to use, or whether there should be such articles; now you've ignored what I told you about terminology, and about the problems of the "of Vancouver" title, never mind "Asian Indians" (where's your citation for THAT?). You are wading into the writing of an article on a subject (Indo-Canadian history and society in British Columbia) that you clearly don't have a clue about; but such is Misplaced Pages. I've "put my share in" too, especially re BC/Vancouver articles and also on ethnicity articles. I, also have limited time and I can't write this encyclopedia by myself, as is the case with all of us. But I also "have limited time and am tired of picking up after people who make a mess"....such as you just did. The title is NOT suitable, and given what's in the cites you've provided I'll either change the title, or delete material that is not part of the City of Vancouver. Let me guess, you've never been there. And you're "Indian" (such a strange term to use stand-alone in Canada, other than meaning native peoples).Skookum1 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I see you created {{Template:Ethnic Vancouver sidebar}} with only "Chinese in Vancouver", which you also started, and what is now properly titled Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. I did not bother adding to the latter that the first gurdwara in BC was established in Abbotsford, as that city is not part of Greater Vancouver. I trust you will expand that template and write other ethno-focused articles such as Germans in Vancouver, Italians in Vancouver and more, which would address equally-significant ethnic groups in the city; and as with the two you've already started "in British Columbia" is the more relevant context...as you will find out if you were to read up on the matter. Whether those titles should be "Chinese Canadians in Vancouver" and e.g. "German Canadians in Vancouver" or "People of German ancestry in Vancouver" , "Italian Canadians in British Columbia" would address the usual Wiki-conventions about such topics. You may have started lots of ethnicity articles indeed; but I wonder how many are similarly mis-titled, and how many address non-Asian groups; clearly you have an agenda here and IMO you are confusing "ethnicity" with "race".Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If you are curious about "Asian Indians" -it's commonly used in the United States, where I am from. U.S. sources use it in relation to Indo-Canadians:
Shen Wu, Jean Yu-wen and Min Song (editors). Asian American Studies: A Reader. Rutgers University Press, Jan 1, 2000. ISBN 0813527260, 9780813527260. p. 41.
"A Reader Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu, Min Song. tion to uphold the restrictions, and the passengers were forced to remain on board ship for two months while Asian Indians residing in Vancouver tried to negotiate an arrangement to allow their"
"You may have started lots of ethnicity articles indeed; but I wonder how many are similarly mis-titled, and how many address non-Asian groups; clearly you have an agenda here and IMO you are confusing "ethnicity" with "race"." - What agenda is it? Oh, I know, it's to cover ethnic history around the world. That's my agenda. :)
"I did not bother adding to the latter that the first gurdwara in BC was established in Abbotsford, as that city is not part of Greater Vancouver." - Well, the article is focused on Vancouver. There are books on "Indo-Canadians in British Columbia" so I'm sure it can be added there.
"I trust you will expand that template and write other ethno-focused articles such as Germans in Vancouver, Italians in Vancouver and more, which would address equally-significant ethnic groups in the city; and as with the two you've already started "in British Columbia" is the more relevant context..." - That depends if I can find enough reliable sources on those groups.
Somebody said: "Someone in Texas arguing about where my company in VA is located is akin to a stranger telling me I'm pronouncing my own name incorrectly." And somebody else pointed out: "Sorry, WP doesn't work that way, we go by reliable sources." :)
So when you say: "You've started a lot of ethnicity articles, so what? YOu came here indicating you didn't know which terminology to use, or whether there should be such articles; now you've ignored what I told you about terminology," - show a citation. Please pay attention to how it was done here: See: Talk:LGBT culture in Houston#Article title as an example
"But I also "have limited time and am tired of picking up after people who make a mess"....such as you just did. The title is NOT suitable, and given what's in the cites you've provided I'll either change the title, or delete material that is not part of the City of Vancouver. Let me guess, you've never been there. And you're "Indian" (such a strange term to use stand-alone in Canada, other than meaning native peoples)." - When you edit Misplaced Pages, there needs to be an amount of patience and tolerance. It's common for Americans like me to say "Asian Indian." Canada's our northern neighbor and as you see above, many American sources use "Asian Indian". Maybe it's specifically not used in Canada, but I would ask you to have a tolerance for this. I don't want American editors who interact with you to get frustrated or quit editing over something that's trivial and easily corrected. Think carefully about the tone used here: Talk:LGBT culture in Houston#Article title. @Skookum1:, I'm going to kindly ask that from this point on you use this tone.
American sources often mis-use terms about Canada and Canadians; way too often. You do not have a right to ignore {{Canadian English}} when writing on Canadian topics. You ignored what I say about Canadian norms/usages and went ahead and used an American term and limited it to the City of Vancouver, contrary to my recommendations; think carefully about your own "tone" and the way you sauntered in here and demanded material on the Air India crash be given special treatment; "in British Columbia" remains the proper context; taht some cites use "Vancouver" to mean "Greater Vancouver" (including StatsCan) is a vagary of Central Canadian usages that ignore BC realities; in Misplaced Pages there are existing conventions about all this, but as with Canadian English you will trot out something or other about American usages. We do not use American usages/mistakes, no more than we title Fraser River as Frazier River, a common American mistake, for example. You came looking for input, got it, have ignored it, and now refute it based on a very shallow reading of mostly-American sources. YOu created an "ethnicity" template focussed on only Chinese and East Indians, and now presume to lecture me that "Asian Indian" is acceptable, when you would be laughed out of the room in BC.Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"Asian Indians" in Canada would probably imply an Oriental minority from India. Anyway, the effect of the attacks on the Indo-Canadians would have to be supported by reliable sources. It probably would be most relevant to the Sikh community. I would use Canadian terminology because it would be more readily understandable. Canadian Indians generally implies aboriginal people, who represent a substantially higher percentage of the population, particularly in Vancouver, than in the U.S. TFD (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
the impact on Canadians (Indo- and/or otherwise) is already covered in Air India Flight 182#"A Canadian tragedy" and subsequent sections. Unless there is a large body of work on that particular topic, there seems to be no need for a separate article on it at all. And you're right about "Indian" in the Canadian context, something that seems lost on our "Indian Texan" interloper who thinks "Asian Indian" should be used because it's used in the US.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"I don't want American editors who interact with you to get frustrated or quit editing over something that's trivial and easily corrected." LOLOL you don't know the half of it; how many times I've gotten frustrated and quit editing because of aggressive/stubborn ignorance on the part of American or British admins as well as editors. On a host of subjects, not incidentally to do with (native) ethnicity in many cases, with a notably peremptory/scolding tone being used most loudly by those among the most ignorant of the subject matter and most dismissive of Canadian English per se; my tone is a reflection of long experience with that, which you have re-exemplified here. As for your Rutgers citation, it's time for Rutgers and other American academic institutions to "get with it" and for people citing them to realize they are not "with it" in terms of respecting Canadian terminology and perspectives. That that paper was authored by three people who would be called "Asian" in Canada (which is generally equated with "East Asian" rather than "South Asian") makes it all the more ironic; and "Asian Indian" is as redundant as "Asian Chinese", except in specifying Indians-in-Asia (i.e. not those in Canada). The presumptiveness that "if the US uses it, it should be used for Canada" is parochial nonsense. Your own examples of "how to behave" on trivial matters appropriately are laughable; "how to behave" when someone makes a wrong title is to do what I did - change it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Skookum, yes, you did change it, but what about the bellicose rant? I find it worrying that you find it "laughable" to use a pleasing, calm manner to discuss the possibility of making a new title. Maybe you do find problems with other American and British editors and perhaps you are frustrated. I understand it can be annoying to have people use terms common in other countries that are not common in your own, and obviously you desire to correct them and make sure they use the correct term. To do that, finds ways to avoid frustrating other editors so they don't frustrate you in turn. Going off on your fellow editors is not going to make you less frustrated, or to make them correct their ways. It's going to make them defensive against you. I don't want to absorb your frustration and I don't want other editors to absorb your frustration.
"On a host of subjects, not incidentally to do with (native) ethnicity in many cases, with a notably peremptory/scolding tone being used most loudly by those among the most ignorant of the subject matter and most dismissive of Canadian English per se; my tone is a reflection of long experience with that, which you have re-exemplified here." - I would characterize the tone of your above rant as "scolding". You may have a long experience with dealing with it, but what about the editor you just met? Your tone won't make him more sympathetic to your experience. He will surely dismiss your concerns when you show anger.
You say: "The presumptiveness that "if the US uses it, it should be used for Canada" is parochial nonsense. " - If an American editor reads an Americans book saying "Asian Indians in Vancouver" then it's perfectly understandable that for this American editor to write "Asian Indians in Vancouver", because Misplaced Pages is based on what is written in reliable sources, not the beliefs of the editors themselves. The American is going to think "Hey, it says that in the book, so that must be the correct term!" Without a book of your own, how are you going to argue with him/her?
You say: "most ignorant of the subject matter" - I say: "you get out the sources, you educate the Wikipedian, and you do with a smile on your face." Americans are going to use American terms from American sources and that's not going to change. Brits are going to use British terms from British sources and that's not going to change. They're not trying to put you down, they're not trying to dismiss you, and they're not harming you. Learn to deal with this issue in a calm, peaceful manner and do not outwardly show aggression, anger, or ranting.
The thing is: I agree that Canadian English articles should use Canadian terms and Americanisms should be corrected. I agree that people should be reminded to use Canadian terms. You need to use a proper method of dealing with this issue. I think the tone you use in your posts is counterproductive and I'm going to ask you again to reconsider your approach.
Cut it with the scolding and lecturing, it's boring; you made a huge gaffe with the title you used and can't admit it; and you used US-based sources to justify it, of all things. Even in the media section you only talked about radio stations in Washington state and ignored the major Indo-Canadian media which, DUH, use "Indo-Canadian" in their titles. I advised you of that usage, and pointed out the fallacy of using "Vancouver" and you completely ignored me, and now are engaging in BLUDGEONing. And yes, "most ignorant of the subject matter" is very clear in the cases I'm not going to bother to link/list for you; one admin from Ireland even bragged that it was best that she was ignorant of the facts, so as to refer only to "guidelines" and not to facts-on-the-ground about Canadian English usages/terms. In other cases, there have been attempts to downplay WP:ENGVAR and diss the preponderance of Canadian sources on some topics as not "global usage", when those cites overwhelmingly outnumber any possible US or UK sources.
As for "Learn to deal with this issue in a calm, peaceful manner and do not outwardly show aggression, anger, or ranting" you are projecting on me your own insecurities and it's a bore, given that you ignored my advice in the first place. It's you that's ranting, and now engaging in an extended NPA against me instead of recognizing that I was right. And here I am, widely read in Canadian affairs, and you presume to demur on the "in British Columbia" matter once sources are provided; well, geezus, you didn't even look for in-BC sources, did you? Imposing an Americanism that is completely out of place in the Canadian context, and not in Canadian sources:
If an American editor reads an Americans book saying "Asian Indians in Vancouver" then it's perfectly understandable that for this American editor to write "Asian Indians in Vancouver", because Misplaced Pages is based on what is written in reliable sources, not the beliefs of the editors themselves. That's so wildly off-base that, yes, it is laughable and also very very very parochial. It's always nice having Americans decide what Canadian articles/peoples should be called by citing their own sources, in the belief that they are correct, which they are not. You didn't look for any reliable sources FROM Vancouver, just cribbed a stub based on U.S. items that you decided trumped the advice I gave you on proper terminology. The Americans who wrote that book are clueless for using that term, given the wide range of sources by and about Indo-Canadians themselves.
Perhaps you're irked that I added the merge tag for your Chinese in Vancouver title to History of Chinese immigration to Canada; and that article includes material on Richmond which is not part of the city of Vancouver. Why don't you start articles on things you know about? - instead of imposing your beliefs and your completely mistaken notion that terms used in US sources should be used on Canadian topics; if that were the case all First Nations articles would have "Native American" titles, and Inuit would be Eskimos.
You came here pretty much demanding that people add something on the impact of the Air India bombing on Indo-Canadian community as if the article on that didn't already have that built into it?
Attacking the messenger as you are doing here is old stuff on Misplaced Pages, and resentment against Canadians standing up for themselves against American and British cultural/linguistic imperialism has gotten similar RANTS such as yours about that.
Your article was shoddy work, using about.com as a source for Punjabi Market, and didn't even get what part of the city it's in correctly; I dispute whether that UGC site is even a reliable source; no doubt you've used it in your series on ethnicity worldwide; which if that's the case shows you don't look very hard. Punjabi Market will have lots of sources, picking a travelogue from a UGC site with bad information is yet another one of your gaffes.
As with "Chinese in Vancouver" re History of Chinese immigration to Canada, in which Chinese history covering BC was decided long ago to not warrant a separate article from the national whole, the same applies here; I'm placing a merge tag on your pet article to Indo-Canadians, as you have provided ZILCH to warrant the separate article; even with "Greater" added to its title, its scope is too narrow; and being written based on a few U.S based sources that even got the main term wrong, is built on sand.
Being lectured by someone who proclaims they have lots of experience as an editor but would produce such an ill-founded article full of wrong terms and wrong facts, while ignoring local expertise in the matter, is such a regular part of Wikipedian ignorance-cum-arrogance there's little point in explaining further. I have no patience with someone presuming to scold me for pointing out they're wrong/misinformed. Anger? That's what you're giving me, being argumentative about things that have been shown to be demonstrably wrong and accusing me of "ranting" when that's what you've been doing all along yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Norwich Ontario
I believe the population shown on the web page is for the village of Norwich which is within The Township of Norwich. I think that the population of the entire township is closer to 15000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.183.39 (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging that - the correction has been made. Somebody changed the number falsely a couple of years ago, and nobody caught it! PKT(alk)14:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:VG comments subpages cleanup
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Canada articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Canada's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I just started merge discussions at Talk:History of Chinese immigration to Canada#merge discussion re a relatively new stub Chinese in Vancouver and re Talk:Indo-Canadians#merge discussion re another stub Indo-Canadians in Vancouver (started as "Asian Indians in Vancouver"). Long ago "we" decided that provincial-level articles for BC were not needed in the Chinese case and the same applies with the Indo-Canadian subject. Not much to merge, re-inventing the wheel, though tidbits like the US-source material about pirate radio stations in Washington may not be in the Indo-Canadian article yet (no effort was made to look for sources from Vancouver, or from BC, it seems); but there is no reason for a separate article at this point, given that the defender/creator of those articles is even resistant to the reality that Indo-Canadians are not limited to the City of Vancouver or even Greater Vancouver, saying "if sources prove that". Well, looking for them would have been a good place to start huh? He would have found the Indo-Canadian Times and the Indo-Canadian Voice for starters, instead of basing his title on an academic work published in the U.S.; curiously, also, someone had put {{British English}} at the top of Talk:Indo-Canadians, which I just changed to {{Canadian English}}.... no wonder I complain about cultural/linguistic imperialism/parochialism from US and UK editors when you come across stuff like this, never mind the ethno-soap agenda at work in their creation. And then getting arrogantly dressed down for making US and UK editors feel unwelcome by pointing out their mistakes. I've tried to keep the merge discussions straightforward and brief; and for those who want to oppose them for whatever reasons without working on improving the stubs....I have to ask what is it in Indo-Canadians and History of Chinese immigration to Canada/Chinese Canadians that's sufficient to warrant a Vancouver-delimited title (or even a BC-delimited one)...what will you add to those stubs to make them worth keeping?Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue I had wasn't with the different words... it was with a combative tone which will not work well on Misplaced Pages, especially when it's not coupled with reliable sources. Now I have found Canadian sources which use "Indo-Canadian" As a result, I started this: Indo-Canadians#Terminology. To correct people's vocabulary, show them the sources. Subtract the tone, add the sources, and everything will be fine.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so me, a veteran Wikipedian active in Vancouver and BC content, telling you that "Asian Indians" wasn't good enough for you, when you hadn't looked for those sources you found after actually looking, and after speciously defending your choice or title by pointing at American usages and then defending that over Canadian usages as if "Asian Indians" was correct? And rejecting the pan-BC reality of the Indo-Canadian presence as YOU hadn't found any sources yet (because you hadn't looked), and where did "Vancouver Sunset" as the location of Punjabi Market come from (it wasn't in that about.com travelogue you used to cite it). Subtract your own tone, and what's with the ethnic-tub-beating? Indo-Canadians is already a massive article, as is Komagata Maru Incident and List of Indo-Canadians? What can you add, as someone who's never even been to BC, that's not already in them? Ethno-SOAP is what your efforts are. It's not like only Chinese and Indo-Canadians are the only ethnic groups in Greater Vancouver or in BC are of note. I've pointed out at parallel topics, you go "well, once sources are found"....as if they don't exist until you find them, and the word of someone from the place isn't enough for you. Your citation of two succesful defences of articles you wrote on ethno-specifics of Merced and LA as "precedent" isn't worth much; especially when there are already articles on both Chinese Canadians of all kinds and Indo-Canadians likewise. Why don't you spend some time on German Canadians in British Columbia or Latin Americans in British Columbia? Your template's narrow Chinese/Indo-Canadian items point to where your own biases lie.Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here: Compare this Template:Ethnic Houston sidebar to Template:Ethnic Metro Detroit sidebar. I started each and every article in that list. So... what happened? Here's what happened: Nobody wrote enough about European immigration to Houston. It's all about what I can write about, not what exists. There are German, Italian, etc. immigrants to Houston, but nobody has written about them! I can't write an encyclopedia article on something nobody has written about!
What can I add? Anything on Google Books or anything from any source I can grab off of Misplaced Pages:RX. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, all about what other people wrote. As a Houstonian, I do have an advantage of being from Houston as I better know where to find source. But I also understand that an editor from Vancouver has the right to add content to these Houston articles, he has the right to use what sources he finds, and he has the right to disagree with me in an editing dispute.
So Re: "And rejecting the pan-BC reality of the Indo-Canadian presence as YOU hadn't found any sources yet" - That never happened. I never "rejected" a pan-BC reality. I simply chose to ask about, then write about, the ones in Vancouver.
"Your citation of two succesful defences of articles you wrote on ethno-specifics of Merced and LA as "precedent" isn't worth much" - Go ask people on AFD if they are worth much.
I had dozens of precedents re native endonym RMs, and also re WP:CSG#Places items, and they were often ignored or excuses made why they didn't apply. This is not an AfD, it was an effort to involve others in the evolution of these titles towards a merge of parallel materials. You STILL have not provided any information or further material, on why these articles are needed on top of the existing ones; they are complex topics, with more about them than you are as yet aware (as demonstrated here time and again), and yet your are WP:OWNing them as if you were an expert on the subjects. Not just somebody cribbing together an ethno-exegesis from what you can find, making it up as you go. And seemingly somewhat obsessed with writing about these topics, without any real knowledge of them; and as yet not addressing vast amounts of historical and biographical material on everything from drivers' licensing scandals to the abused rights of farm workers re Sikhs, the Khalistan movement; your one mention of Chinese parents' efforts to launch political campaigns for separate Chinese schools and/or schoolboards is thin on the ground and one-sided, and then there's the Chinese-only marketing campaigns re real estate developments, the 'empty condo' and 'empty monster house' problems, and so much more; or the discrimination faced by the original Chinese Canadians from the new-era ones since t he '80s, and more and more and more; even your lede in the Chinese one begins only in 1886, not with the origins of the Chiense presence in Vancouver before that (which is one reason why Chinese Canadians in British Columbia/Chinese Canadian history in British Columbia (the former a title implying a summary/list about individuals, the latter about history and society). But strap on your wiki-boots, keep on posting references to books you haven't read, and pump these articles up as much as you like. Your attempt to bludgeon these merge discussions before anyone else has even chimed in, even though you know little about the subjects, or the city/province, stands for me as yet another article written by cribbing sources without context or insight. But such is Misplaced Pages. You have as yet provided NO REASON why "your" articles should exist independently of the already-extant ones on both subjects. Hmong in Merced and Armenian Americans in LA are not valid comparisons; your success in getting the resident claque at AfD to support your other self-authored articles...but AfD is not a place where reason prevails. Anything but, all too often.` `Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's my reason for writing "ethnicity in city" articles: People consider "ethnic history of a city" an interesting subject, a valuable subject, and one that has importance to their local culture. I first noticed articles such as History of the Jews in Galveston and that got me started. Several editors interested in Jewish history had already made city-by-city articles on it. That made me interested. If people write books about something, and a Misplaced Pages's goal is to write about what other people write about, then there is a reason for the subject of those books to have an article. Example: The authors of ethnic history consider "Irish in New York" as a worthy topic to write books about. That's why the corresponding article survived AFD. That's your reason.
I am from Houston, and I wanted to document the ethnic history of my city. People have written books about the Mexicans in Houston, Texas, so I wrote Mexicans in Houston. Then I moved onto the Chinese and the Vietnamese. Then I noticed there were books on ethnic history in other American cities so I did that. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Detroit, even Columbus, Ohio. For the Hmong people I wrote about the Hmong in Merced. That survived AFD, and in any case I wrote Hmong in Minneapolis, Hmong in Fresno, and Hmong in Wisconsin. Then I moved onto other places in the world: Japanese in Paris, Chinese in London, Hui in Beijing (the Hui people are an ethnic group in China). There are similar city-by-city articles I started about LGBT populations. If you look at my userpage, an ethnic Japanese living in Brazil gave thanks to me writing about the Japanese in Sao Paulo. These articles have become standard worldwide and Misplaced Pages-wide.
I know however much the sources say about the subjects. Don't know anything about, say, the Cubans in Miami? That's A-OK. Crack open a book and read it. Wonder if you can write an article on it? The question becomes: did someone write about it? If it's yes, crack open the book and write about it. You say: "keep on posting references to books you haven't read, and pump these articles up as much as you like." - But the content I added reflects what is written in the book? How could I have not read it? :|
If somebody says that something is not covered in these articles: Get out a source and write about it and add the content. Nothing's stopping anybody from adding to it. See, Skookum, here's the secret: Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project. You say I don't have "real knowledge" about these subjects. Well, the people with "real knowledge" haven't gotten out to write them, have they? How do you get them to do that? The way to do that is to start a stub and list the sources. That's how you get the people with "real knowledge" out. And that "real knowledge" only counts if they are using and showing Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources that they are supposed to be using anyway.
Your ignorance of the subject was amply demonstrated by your use of "Asian Indians"; that you are actually using Canadian sources and Canadian terminology now is a start...but you still haven't provided any reasons why what you are putting in these articles should exist separately from existing articles.Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
your other ethno-titles are maybe acceptable within US-based Misplaced Pages standards; but "Mexicans in Houston" would indicate "Citizens of Mexico in Houston" as with other similar; again, American usages/standards do not carry across the border. Maybe you'll figure that out. But to me, you are writing on subject areas you only have a cursory knowledge of as yet, and providing sophomoric justifications for your sudden ardent interest in these particulars; yes Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project, and that's why there's so much amateur content in it, and so many jejune defences of "garbage in garbage out".Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible to create articles specifically on a city basis, Skookum. That's not an insult to the rest of the province, that's not ignoring the rest of the province. It's just a way of categorizing information. I created Mexicans in Houston and Mexicans in Dallas-Fort Worth. Does that prevent someone from adding to Mexicans in Texas? It does not.
1. "Sophomoric" start articles are to be cheered and praised and be given joy. As much as you want people to write a fully-formed, perfect, well written article from the beginning, that often doesn't happen and it usually won't happen. Most excellent articles have a start as a small, undeveloped stub. The stub process is necessary to encourage people because most people don't have the time and most people don't even know it's possible to write about these subjects. I am showing people yes, it's possible, you can do it. By doing this I am also saying: "Hey, here's a start article. This is a Wiki. Please improve it!" I may have not known much about the Japanese in Sao Paulo, but the Brazilian welcomed by start.
If you are still skeptical: There was an editor who argued that my start of LGBT in San Francisco needed way more content, but then he thanked me for starting an article on this "daunting" subject. Without my start, it was likely nobody else was going to do this. So, here I am. I start the article, and now the article has been started. Somebody else may get an idea and finish.
2. "but "Mexicans in Houston" would indicate "Citizens of Mexico in Houston" as with other similar" - The article actually has the title History of Mexican Americans in Houston. I will say there isn't a consistent naming standard and I won't mind if the articles are moved to other titles. I wouldn't mind if there is an RFC over their titles.
3. The public has expectations that Misplaced Pages "covers anything". There are clearly subjects which don't deserve coverage, but if something does deserve coverage according to WP:GNG you may as well go and start it, right?
4. "but you still haven't provided any reasons why what you are putting in these articles should exist separately from existing articles" - Are you doing to ask Northern Illinois University the reasons why it writes articles on ethnic history in a city by city basis? Mexicans in Chicago, Italians in Chicago. What about the "Encyclopedia of Chicago"? Germans in Chicago, Italians in Chicago. If other encyclopedias are doing it, why can't we? People think in terms of ethnic groups cities: A "Brooklyn Jew" or an "Italian from Philly" - And if American ethnic groups are categorized that way, so are Canadian groups, and French ones, and Chinese ones, etc.
I was wondering if there's an article about the history of Canadian service rifles? (such as the Ross, Lee-Enfield, FN FAL, C8) ? I noticed that the Lee-Enfield is being withdrawn from service. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Another question: Would it count as WP:SYNTH to have a dedicated article on the Indo-Canadian population of Metro Vancouver? (Vancouver, Surrey, and other Vancouver suburbs)
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The nom's complete lack of familiarity of the place and subject matter is borne out once again by his (her?) use of "Metro Vancouver", which is the DBA/brandname of the board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is he/she had had any familiarity at all with Canadian topic/title conventions he would know about (as similarly he would have known about the "Indo-Canadian" term vs "Asian Indian"). The context of his/her title was "Asian Indians in Vancouver"; I had pointed out, after moving that to the correct term/title and sense meant to Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver, that the true and most relevant context, if a split away from the main Indo-Canadians title was to be done, would be Indo-Canadians in British Columbia; instead of entertaining that, and seemingly to prevent me from doing a further move to that, he/she created the "in BC" title as a stub, and has spent the last three days since padding it so it looks plausible....in reality Indo-Canadian history and society and BC can not be fit so neatly separate from itself by pretending that subjects about Indo-Canadians in Surrey/Vancouver etc can be treated separately from those in Abbotsford-Mission/Chilliwack or Nanaimo/Duncan or in the Okanagan or Cariboo or elsewhere.
Ten days ago he/she did not even know the correct term to use, and though he/she has fire-bombed any discussion about this with lists of links he's found (once he/she finally found out the proper term to use) and various posturing about "many locals" and "plenty of locals" and what they want (I'm a local, he/she doesn't care what I'm telling him/her)......the fact is that the history of any ethnic group in Vancouver or Greater Vancouver can NOT and should NOT be separated because someone from far away is being stubborn about refusing to listen to advice.
I know comments like these are not normal for this page, but the background to this quarrel is in several places, and the history of its various pretenses and misconstruances needs to be stated.Skookum1 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the readers are perfectly capable of going to the RFC page and reading the discussion/dispute for themselves. I have replied to Skookum's concerns there. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no reason to indulge your mistake by re-posting something you had overwritten on top of mine. And don't presume to lecture me on CANTALK; I am a regular member here for many years now and it is you who are WP:FORUMSHOPPING, not me.Skookum1 (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Forumshopping: It states: "Queries placed on noticeboards should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." - To avoid forum shopping that's what I did. I phrased them as neutrally as possible. In addition it states: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct noticeboards may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question." - So that's what I did - I raised it first elsewhere but there have been only two participants for now. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Page Update
Is there a bot updating this page? The content in this page such as current peer review requests, good article nominees get outdated really easily. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor 21:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
For full disclosure, both I and the Wikipedian who moved the page are together currently involved in an editing dispute regarding Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and Indo-Canadians in British Columbia over whether the articles should remain separate or be combined together. You may see the pages of this dispute here:
WP:POLLING is about the collection of votes or deciding things by votes. The purpose of this message is to inform all interested parties by WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Then I used the wrong wiki-cap title; WP:POLL maybe, the attempt to enlist sympathetic votes rather than simply stating the existence of the the discussion; your inclusion of the ancillary links is also a violation; for an admin, you sure aren't in habit of respecting things like that; not that lots of admins behave questionably.
Watchlisting request
Following the news earlier today about Jian Ghomeshi's firing from the CBC, it's beginning to break on social media — and will probably start making the real media soon — that Ghomeshi has released his own statement about the matter. And unfortunately, it looks to be exactly the kind of sensitive, prurient "revelations about his private sex life" matter that requires us to pay extra special attention to our WP:BLP rules. I've put the page under one week of temporary "only autoconfirmed users" edit protection to preclude drive-by IP assassinations, but would ask that as many editors as possible help to monitor the situation for potential BLP violations over the next few days. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Called a "PD version", is this actually used anywhere (on the road)?This version of Alberta's went from the one similar to NB to the left, but note the shading.This blank version is much darker, and is listed as PD Crown CopyrightThis 16 in BC is yet another shade, and is listed as PD Crown Copyright
Is there a reason that File:New Brunswick Route 2 (TCH).png is fair use, while most of the others that I have checked (i.e. File:Alberta Highway 1.svg) are PD crown copyright, and over at commons? They are generally all the same (maple leaf, road number, province at the bottom), although many of them have different shades of green. I honestly don't pay attention on the shade when I drive the Trans-Canada, but are they different? If there isn't a copyright issue, and they are all the same colour, they should probably be all updated over at commons (an issue for over there I know). There is also File:TCH 2.svg which is called a "PD version" which is looks like it is just made up with a generic maple leaf (I don't think it is actually used anywhere on the roads). --kelapstick19:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the description page for the NB Route 2 shield, the only reason it is marked as fair use is the fact that nobody has updated it. The image was uploaded in 2007 and since it was first published in 1959, its PD date would have been January 1, 2010. That "PD version" is nothing I have seen before. It certainly is not used in Western Canada, and if that shield does not accurately represent what the shields in NB look like, they should be removed. We should not be peddling inaccuracies for the sake of copyright paranoia. Resolute19:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that makes sense, so a quick solution would be to change the fair use rational to a PD licence with a copy to commons tag. Notwithstanding the shading differences. I also agree, having driven on the TCH in nine provinces, I have never seen the "PD version" illustrated on the left in any of them. --kelapstick19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that changing the licensing tag is appropriate. As far as the shading goes, I would imagine those are either cases of different people using different best guesses, or reflections on the fact that at different times, governments have used different paints and materials for signage. I would say that I have seen something close to all of those shades used on street signs in Calgary alone, for instance. But it would be nice to get the official colour the government mandates for those as present and unify them.Resolute19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually Template:jct (and probably others) goes a lot deeper than that. Have a look at what happens when it is used for all the TCHs. I put the shields, and the templates at User:Kelapstick/Trans-Canada Highway for visual purposes. Looks like the whole thing needs to be fixed. I will update the licence for TCH 2 in New Brunswick, as it seems like it is an anomoly. Also Quebec and Ontario, although I don't think they use the TCH shield, rather a blank beside the provincial? --kelapstick21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
← OK, I think I have most of it sorted, and am going to request that the shields in the template for all provinces except Ontario and Quebec be linked to the proper provincial TCH shields. It seems as though, based on the way roads are signed in Ontario and Quebec that the way to go with them is either both a TCH and provincial shield side by side, or just the standard provincial shield. I am thinking the latter, as it makes it easier for consistency. Newfoundland and Labrador needs a shield made up for Route 1, and it is a little different than the standard shields used across the country (noted in the link above). --kelapstick13:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, the PD "TCH shields" are a relic from when the actual TCH shields were still under Crown Copyright. Now that that's no longer an issue, we can probably delete them. –Fredddie™21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Indo-Canadian versus South Asian Canadian versus East Indian Canadian
I notice Indo-Canadiansoriginally stated: "Indo-Canadians (also known as Indian Canadians) are Canadian citizens of Indian descent or India-born people who reside in Canada."
"The term 'Indo-Canadians' came into use in the 1980s as a result of the Canadian government's policy and ideology of multiculturalism. It refers to Canadian-born people whose origins are on the Indian subcontinent." - That would make it the same thing as South Asian Canadian which states: "South Asian Canadians refers to Canadians who were either born in or can trace all or part of their ancestry to South Asia."
PDF p. 17/82: "The term “East Indian” is generally used in Canada to refer to “people whose roots are specifically in India”" (and he cites Nayar p. 235)
Nayar p. 235: "'East Indians' refers to people whose roots are specifically in India." and the same page states "'South Asians' is a very broad category as it refers to people originally in the geographical area of South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. 'South Asians' also refers to Indians who have migrated to other parts of the world such as Fiji, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and East Africa."
So, now you presume to come along and challenge the long-established name of an article based on your readings of sources and ignore long-standing consensus, based on a few hand-picked quotes you've found, now that you know the proper term to search for? WP:DEADHORSE, give it up, there's no reason to rename these articles at all and it's a can of worms you're opening (South Asia also includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and in some reckonings also Burma/Myanmar, so they're not "exactly the same"). Your game-of-names about long-standing title conventions and the topics addressed entirely new to you is tiresome...and not slightly "disruptive". Do you have any other applecarts you intend to field wild-card arguments about? Indo-Canadian is the widely accepted term, in Misplaced Pages, and also in the real world (e.g. the Indo-Canadian media use it, as does mainstream media). Stop trying to rejig things to fit your reading of certain references and your own linguistic prejudices/preconceptions. There is no constructive purpose to your question here, only more dissembling of the kind I'm becoming too familiar with (and bored by).Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
That "original" version of the article had "Indian Canadians" removed for good reason; it was a wrong usage for Canada and not viable in Canadian English, where "Indian Canadians" and "Canadian Indians" would refer 9 times out of 10 (or 19 out of 20) to First Nations people.....but hey, why stop with Indo-Canadians, why not propose changing the name of First Nations too? Maybe to you they're "Native American Canadians?"Skookum1 (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
"Indo-Canadian is the widely accepted term, in Misplaced Pages, and also in the real world (e.g. the Indo-Canadian media use it, as does mainstream media)." - The problem isn't the acceptance of Indo-Canadian - the problem is that Indo-Canadian really is the same thing as "South Asian Canadian" and that it is NOT "East Indian Canadian" but that until now it was defined as being the same as "East Indian Canadian" in the lead! - Currently there is no article for East Indian Canadians and we have two redundant articles: Indo-Canadians and South Asian Canadians. I don't care if Indo-Canadian is used instead of South Asian Canadian (that is up to you and everyone else) - What I am saying is that the terms are clearly redundant. There should be one article for "Indo-Canadian" and "South Asian Canadian" while "East Indian Canadian" gets its own article.
If there is "long-standing consensus" for definitions: where are the sources supporting this consensus? Show me the discussions and show me what sources were brought up. If there is a source conflict (when two or more sources disagree) that can be discussed. If other sources use the same definitions as Nayar, then there is no debate about definitions.
Comment: - I re-read Nayar's definition of "Indo-Canadian" and that means a person born in Canada of Indian subcontinent origins. That would include Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh but Sri Lanka and Nepal are often defined as not a part of the subcontinent. However there are Definitions of "Indian subcontinent" which do include Sri Lanka and Nepal. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: - Another definition of Indo-Canadian:
Sharma, Kavita A. The Ongoing Journey: Indian Migration to Canada. Creative Books, 1997. ISBN 8186318399, 9788186318393. p. 16. "Notes 1 Indians are variously designated as East Indians, South Asians and Indo- Canadians. The terms are used interchangeably throughout this book except that 'Indo-Canadian' has been used for only those Indians who have acquired Canadian citizenship." - Search view, Search view #2
More flogging of a WP:DEADHORSE. This article title has been stable for a very long time, your attempts to overturn it based on the few definitions/sources you've found so far are irrelevant; unless there is good reason to overturn long-standing consensus, no change should be made. But you sure are trying, aren't you? That this yet another emendation of the vast amounts of SYNTH you have posted on other discussion boards is getting repetitive; trying to enlist support for your position etc.Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Skookum1: You say there is consensus that overweighs the definitions I show. Show me this consensus. You are responsible for giving proof and evidence to back up your claims. I am not responsible for doing so.
I also believe this response is misguided. As you know from Moonriddengirl's posts, reliable sourcing is what defines Misplaced Pages. In fact, there is no reason to be upset by this effort of mine to get sourced definitions.
You are engaging in extensive SYNTH and have done so on related discussions, also, your lengthy addition to "terminology" in the Indo-Canadians articles is mostly SYNTH and your approach to this, as a new topic to you, is entirely original research "oh I found another definition"; your attempt here to dispute long-standing Canadian English titles is way out of place; yet you continue to want to advance your agenda here, and continue to demand sources and links when you have only just discovered this subject and now presume to want to re-name things to suit...the sources you've picked. Long-standing consensus re stable titles is what it is; long-standing consensus; not to be blithely overturned by a newbie who's just foun:d out what the proper term to use it (so, gee, you want to presume to dispute and redefine that term now, to suit your agenda....). You are out of line, here and elsewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an unsatisfactory response. I asked for evidence of previous discussion of definitions of "Indo-Canadian" and this was not provided. I asked for reliable sources and these were not provided.
This discussion should be entirely focused upon the issue of definitions of Indo-Canadian, East Indian, and South Asian. Please do not conflate it with that other discussion.
The article African American has its definition sourced to reliable sources. Also nowhere in the discussion did I say that it was inherently wrong to choose "Indo-Canadian" as a definition. Talk:African American#Antebellum.3F shows a discussion
Using dictionary definitions or definitons in reliable source is not SYNTH. It is WP:V.
If no references to any previous discussion are presented, I will presume that this consensus you speak of does not exist. Therefore this discussion is doing a huge favor to these articles, as it is now establishing what they should be about.
Comment Your ongoing arrogance is breathtaking e.g. I will presume that this consensus you speak of does not existWho are you to "presume" anything much less to pontificate on WP:Canada about what you, as an American, think we should rename this article to based on your novitiate acquaintance with the subject, or indeed with Canadian society or proper terminology to use on Canadian articles. Your pretension at continuing your "debate" by making demands such as you are constantly doing is noxious. This has been a stable title for a very long time, and here you are, not a month into writing on this, and presuming to lecture and demand for this and that on not just this but on several talkpages now. Failing to find support for your SYNTH division of Vancouver from BC, and even more for your splitting off of the subject of "Asian Indians in Vancouver", you are now resorting to want to change the name that you didn't know and presume to challenge the long-standing consensus (arrived at by informed consensus of Canadian editors, not by any formal discussion as is the norm now) because you have been ignorant of the various definitions and usages. Indo-Canadians use the term, and per WP:NCET what they call themselves should be the title of the article....not what some sophomore in Texas whose personal wiki-thing is a wiki-wide campaign of "ethnic groups by city" articles....Your reference to Native American as some kind of pretext for whatever it is you think you're talking about is apples and oranges. And t his bit "This discussion should be entirely focused upon the issue of definitions of Indo-Canadian, East Indian, and South Asian" is not what you say it is; you want to change article titles, SYNTH-research what YOU think should be the title, and continue to field non sequitur after non sequitur and demand after demand; your disrespect for me throughout has been utterly WP:AGF and this attempt of yours to sideline discussion to definitions only as if that's all you were up to is disingenuous as hell. You do not live in the real world, know little about Canada and or about Indo-Canadians and apparently don't give a fig for what has existed long before you joined Misplaced Pages; people like you are time-wasters and you are not doing anything constructive with this attempt to name-change and definition-game the losing side of your agenda that you are currently on. WP:DEADHORSE means what it says, and elsewhere in TITLE and other guidelines/policies it says flat out unless there is a valid reason to develop a new consensus, there is no reason to change a long-standing stable title (whether or not it had a formal consensus process to establish that). You are being disruptive, are constantly AGF, and FORUMSHOPPING in extremis; your adminship should be pulled, IMOSkookum1 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
" Therefore this discussion is doing a huge favor to these articles, as it is now establishing what they should be about."
@Sitush: Never mind, the IP user was blocked. Nonetheless I agree with the idea that each user should state his/her case in five lines or less. So will do that:
The definitions of "South Asian Canadian" and "Indo-Canadian" overlap, while "East Indian Canadian" (its own definition: Canadians of origins from post-partition India) does not have its own article. The two articles should be merged at either title while East Indian Canadian should be created. I do not have a preference for either "Indo-Canadian" or "South Asian Canadian." Three lines :)
Oh, so already having created one POV fork to protect your false SYNTH notion of urban/rural BC, you now propose THREE more POV forks so as to re-tool normative Canadian English. Good grief.Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to cite the whole of Canadian English usages of any of the terms and contexts you are so abysmally ignorant of, and apparenetly hostile to. Statcan is the obvious place to go for definitions, Canadian Press' and CBC' styleguides are internal databases and not available to source. if you are so ignorant of the subject and of Canadian English, you should have learned about all this before you started writing whole articles by pastiche-ing together any source you could find, and presuming to argue about geographic contexts (Vancouver/BC) about places you know nothing about? And rather than accept AGF what you were told by an experienced Canadian editor, you have been citing and ranting and posting walls of text to support your campaign to OWN these topics, using your SYNTH suppositions and extrapolations as if they were fact?Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Other than the aforementioned StatCan (Census of Canada) and media usages (because there are no published style guides, you're welcome to do searches of each newspaper's/network's google results for what they use, and it will be overwhelmingly "Indo-Canadian" that you'll find, unless someone specifically from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Nepal is being discussed), the Canadian Encyclopedia redirects "Indo-Canadians" to "South Asian Canadians" with the opening lines saying, point-blank
"Those people referred to as South Asians, Indo-Canadians or East Indians are one of the most diverse ethnocultural populations in Canada. They trace their origins to South Asia, which encompasses India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka."
and in the body of that article
"People referred to as "South Asian" view the term in the way that those from European countries might view the label "European." While they acknowledge that South Asians share cultural and historical characteristics, their basic identification is more specifically tied to their ethnocultural roots. In areas such as Metro Toronto, over 20 distinct ethnic groups can be identified within the large (more than 857,575) South Asian population"
Worth noting also that the the roots of the Sikh Canadian community included many who came from pre-Partition India; the Pakistani Canadian article says "Most Pakistani Canadians are Muslims", to which I just added a cite needed tag as no numbers are provided to establish this, the article downplays Sikh Canadians though it also says, without mentioning Sikhs directly, "Most of the Pakistanis who had settled in British Columbia were Punjabis and took advantage of the new immigration policy to sponsor members of their families.". Exact figures on Sikhs vs Muslims among Canadians with origins from what is now Pakistan are not easily discernible and would require SYNTH to establish through tricky comparisons of historical census data on country of origin, which isn't broken down by religion on StatCan (religion is broken down separately without cross-reference to country of origin). Suffice to say that "Punjabi" in Canada could and has referred to both those from India and those from what is now Pakistan - and Bangladesh or Malaysia/Singapore), and the derisive "Paki" in Canada is/was most commonly use for Sikhs in general.
There is no need for any external interpretations as demanded, nor any need for your presumptive suggestion to merge these articles (all of which you only found out about, or even looked at, after you were made aware of "Indo-Canadian", which you attempted to reject). Your game is becoming tiresome, as is the onslaught of your deluging discussions in several different places with endless listings of cites you've found/selected to support your case, which is built on sand...and arrogance.Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Skookum, what you posted above is making the case that Indo-Canadian and South Asian Canadian need to be merged together. You realize that, right? I have no opinion on whether South Asian Canadian or Indo-Canadian is the better term, so any protests accusing me of labeling Indo-Canadian as an improper term have no merit and no relevance to this discussion. Your anxiety is based off of a misunderstanding on your part. All you have to do to deal with it is:
"I absolutely prefer "Indo-Canadian" in case of a merge - Skookum1" - There, post over. There is no reason for you to be upset in this discussion. I never said Indo-Canadian is a bad term. I have found that "Indo-Canadian" and "South Asian Canadian" need to be merged together. You should agree with this 100%.
If "East Indian Canadian" is an inappropriate/untenable topic what about Pakistani Canadian or Sri Lankan Canadian or the other "nationality-based" topics? Are they inappropriate too?
" "I don't have time to cite the whole of Canadian English usages of any of the terms and contexts you are so abysmally ignorant of," - It is your job to make me "not ignorant" of these things, but that actually requires finding explicit definitions and declarations of what "South Asian" or "Indo-Canadian" or "East Indian" mean. If you "don't have time" to do that, you "don't have time" to contribute to this discussion. This is true for any dispute on Misplaced Pages.
You post about how the same group is known as "Indo-Canadians" and "East Indians" and "South Asian" (what it means is that the words are being conflated with each other even though they also have their own specific meanings). I knew that already: There were reliable sources that explicitly say that those terms are conflated, and you can find what I wrote here: Indo-Canadians#Terminology and I had shown you this section before. I also knew that already in regards to South Asian Canadians being made up of so many groups.
Comment: The way I see it, these terms do not vary so much that they deserve articles each. Neither do their scopes vary that the new articles are justified by this. In addition, these terms are not so widely apart in meaning or usage that their clubbing together would result in problems for readers searching for material. I do not support split or additional forks. What I do request is that those who add WikiProject template banners also add their assessment about the article's importance and class, so that this work does not remain for others. Also, concerned editors morally should take up those glaring issues which require improvement, notably replacing bare-bone urls with cite templates. I have done a couple & request others to do the rest. AshLin (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
From my research I have found that the terms "Indo-Canadian," "South Asian," and "East Indian Canadian" all are often conflated with one another even though there are often specific definitions. Do you believe that Pakistani Canadian, Sri Lankan Canadian, etc. should also be merged into the same article? Or do you think Pakistani Canadian should have its own article while East Indian Canadian (the specific term for Canadians of origins from post-partition India) should not have its own article? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, geez, man, get a grip...why should he "do you a favour" by ignoring someone pointing out how anti-guideline and POV-fork creation your conduct has been from the start? You ignore me regularly, now you're asking a third party to do the same. And once again you are wallpapering discussions with your SYNTH views and pretensions, all of them WP:POINT and yes, given you fiddling with "definitions" on various pages it's very clear your nose is out of joint that "Asian Indian Canadians" was changed to the correct Indo-Canadian.Skookum1 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My view is like this. I had opined about the need for separate articles on three related terms & my opinion is that since they are very closely related and separated by nuances, these should preferably be treated in one article & not in different articles. However, if articles on different populations of naturalised Canadians are sought to be created, then the community should be notable, the article created explicitly should show the need in terms of relevant, well-referenced content and consensus sought at the mother project especially since the issue has arisen in debate. Such an article would best be created in user space & placed for consensus before move to main space. Articles must not be created merely on nuanced differences in definition. At the same time, opposition to these articles must come from reasons why Misplaced Pages is better off without such an article. Consideration of both sides of the argument (for & against) may be postponed till after the candidate article on User space is created.(continued)
On an unrelated issue, I do feel that WhisperToMe & Skookum1, who are arguing about these articles should first of all improve the articles, by copy-editting etc - personally, I consider it a shame when mature, experienced editors don't use cite templates but opt for bare bone urls on simple web hyperlinks in the referencing. I have done my bit with a few edits on improving references. My request is please improve the article before getting into a dispute about it. AshLin (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
POV-fork city huh? So what about Indo-Canadians of Trinidadian, East African, or Malaysian roots? "from post-partition India" doesn't cut it; given that you wanted to use "Asian Indians" and only found out about the other canadian articles, and the proper term, less than a month ago, your pretentiousness and posturing is getting very tiring and not slightly obnoxious. Why don't you learn about the subjects, and learn about Canada (and listen to some Canadian editors) before shooting your mouth off about mergers and new titles? Your nose still out of joint for having "Asian Indian" corrected, despite your protests that it was supported by incorrect RS?Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"Asian Indian" is old news and splitting/merging articles do not make POV forks. I think this discussion should be focused on the current issue at hand. I would recommend, to all editors, disregarding any input that does not discuss the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that the definitions need to be clarified.
How to sub-divide "South Asians" as per Statistics Canada (the agency does not use the term Indo-Canadian) may be found here (the sub-classifications go by "national" origin or by "ethnic group") - For instance there are categories for Bangladeshi (nationality) and Bengali (ethnic group in both Bangladesh and West Bengal):
South Asian origins, n.i.e. (nie = "not included elsewhere")
The term "South Asian Canadian" does include those with origins from East Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc. (Nayar p. 235). How those South Asians classify themselves is up to them. I do not have data which states how those ones classify themselves.
"There is no need for any external interpretations as demanded" - You have been repeatedly told that "external" content is what Misplaced Pages is made of and what defines Misplaced Pages.
NOT "external content as selected/cherrypicked for SYNTH purposes" as you have been constantly doing. The point of the Canadian Encyclopedia citation is that it establishes that the three terms are, in Canada, tantamount to the same thing; and we are not talking about renaming South Asian Canadians, though it seems you would like to merge it, "we" are talking about whether Indo-Canadians is the correct title for that article, which you clearly are on a tubthump to challenge. But here's a guideline for you, WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification which you evidently don't give a flying fig for:
"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title."
The titles of the Indo-Canadian Voice and Indo-Canadian Times and various organizations speak for themselves, as does the normative use of "Indo-Canadians" throughout Canadian media. So your speculative sophomorisms and SYNTH clattering together of selected citations to advance your thesis/agenda are against guidelines; academic definitions that lead you to "conclude" (SYNTH) anything different are discounted by that guideline, and by various passages in WP:TITLE (which is a policy, not a guideline). your campaign against this term is completely uncalled for and groundless in Misplaced Pages terms, and your peppering your reams of cites and SYNTH ideas across multiple discussions is a complete waste of time.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"we" are talking about whether Indo-Canadians is the correct title for that article, which you clearly are on a tubthump to challenge." - Incorrect. You completely misread the beginning post at 17:41, 2 November 2014 which means the arguing on your end is completely pointless. We are talking about whether to merge "Indo-Canadians" and "South Asian Canadian" together and carve out content for "East Asian Canadian." Any claims that I argued that "Indo-Canadian" is an inappropriate are putting words in my mouth. I never made such an argument.
I already knew that the words are conflated. (Widyarini p. 7 says that "Indo-Canadian" and "South Asian" were used interchangeably and Henderson p. 65 stated that "Indian" and "South Asian" were conflated in the past). Nonetheless Misplaced Pages also supports formal definitions from governments. Even though common speech conflates things we must also stick to formal/recognized definitions from reliable authorities.
"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." - In order to do that, you need a reliable source stating explicitly that. If you are not willing to find such a source, you must not ask people to do that. Wikipedians should not say Indo-Canadians are the preferred term over South Asian because said so - No, they should say Indo-Canadians are the preferred term over South Asian because said so
"The titles of the Indo-Canadian Voice and Indo-Canadian Times and various organizations speak for themselves" - That is Misplaced Pages:Original research without a source explicitly saying so. There is the South Asian Focus in Brampton and "A National South Asian Newspaper, CanAsian Times" both from Canada. I could say "look at those titles" as an OR way to say "South Asian" is better.
In order to oppose a merger of Indo-Canadian and South Asian Canadian you have to come up with a reason why they shouldn't be merged together. If you don't do that, you cannot oppose such a merger. Everything you've stated would be in support of such a merger.
Bullshit, and putting words in my mouth to suit yourself "Everything you've stated would be in support of such a merger." is not the case at all; Indo-Canadians and South Asian Canadians have stood as articles for years; there is no more usefulness to merge them, or even to advance such a merger, than there is to merge Norwegian Canadians and Canadians of Danish ancestry to Scandinavian Canadians. WP:NCET's self-identification passage is more than ample reason to reject your external SYNTH analysis to impose YOUR views on the titles of these articles; "South Asian" is a regional-origin grouping, Indo-Canadian is more specific to a subgroup of that; and yes, the CE says the terms are interchangeable in regular use in Canada, but you have as yet provided no valid reason why long-standing titles should be renamed or merged to suit your agenda; re WP:POINT. Your post above about "ignoring the content below" was offensive anti-AGF; I state again that I think your adminship should be pulled for the conduct and agenda-mongering you are indulging in.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
By the "logic" you are indulging in, and per NCET, why not just merge them all (German, Chinese, Ukrainian, South Asian/Indo-Canadian, etc etc) to Canadians??...... indeed, most Indo-Canadians I know personally and in countless media op-eds simply prefer the term "Canadian", as do most of us no matter what background we are of. The wiki-obsession with ethnicity is not in step with public reality, but then little of[REDACTED] is in step with reality. And you are definitely not in step with reality, or have any respect for long-standing titles that you have only just discovered and want to dispute/merge etc. What's with the obsession with ethnicity and nomenclature anyway? Not that you'll answer that, but you clearly spend all your day on this, and expect others to also. You have deluged page after page with your arguments, and presume to even tell other people who do show up to "ignore" what I have to say. Geezus.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You say: ""South Asian" is a regional-origin grouping, Indo-Canadian is more specific to a subgroup of that" - Do you have sources? (The Canadian Encyclopedia statement has been addressed but it does not have the answer) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You are now proposing a triple merge, or are you presuming that your opposition to merging Indo-Canadians in British Columbia to Indo-Canadians will succeed because of your deluging/drowning the discussion (and so many others) with your POV/POINT-agenda? "Do you have sources?" is getting to be a tiresome refrain. Do you have common sense? is the response; it's already clear that you have provided no basis whatsoever to overturn long-standing titles without broad consensus (see WP:TITLE about that) - a consensus you are clearly not getting in the responses so far; your argumentative behaviour about titles that have been around long than you have been on Misplaced Pages is beyond ridiculous, it is disruptive in the extreme; so, are you going to launch an RM for your "new agenda" to merge South Asian Canadian with Indo-Canadians, on whichever title you will name-war over, even before this merge discussion is closed? You have no clear idea about procedure, no respect for what others tell you, and tell them to "ignore" me for disputing your nonsense. Grow up.Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ever heard of "leave well enough alone". There is no compelling reason to fiddle with these titles or definitions, other than satisfy your obessiveness about them. I've had enough, my days get wasted because of you;
] Oh, so I'm supposed to use my whole day to satisfy someone whose agenda has now spanned at least ten different talkpages with walls of texts and SYNTH arguments and endless repetitions of the same agenda just to satisfy YOUR demand for sources for what is obvious to a Canadian. Do you get paid for this time you are wasting? Do you pay me for this time you are wasting with your endless demands. Others in the merge at Talk:Indo-Canadians, which you so ardently have opposed, have stated clearly they see no reason that the merge should not go through, is that your problem? You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, and me, on so many places it's hard to remember where; and yet you didn't even have any knowledge of this subject, or the terminology, a month ago....and here you are "Mr Expert" wanting to rename articles, merge others, POV fork others, and you expect to be taken seriously? Be taken seriously, ie. that someone else should spend their day coming up with sources that you will cherrypick to continue SYNTHing away and pretend they mean something different than they do, as with your new little tub-thump about merging Indo-Canadians into South Asian Canadians before the merge on the former is even concluded? I'm resisting seeing a neophyte to Canadian topics sashaying in, using the wrong term, taking umbrage at seeing it proven wrong and changed, FORUMSHOPPING all over hell's half acre, and stitching together cites to SYNTH up a case - completely abusing RS to advance a thesis/agenda - is not valid incantation of the RS refrain. What @Moonriddengirl: said about RS is very true, but RS should not be abused, and your histrionics about me outproducing you on your piecing together quotes from cites you've found (cherrypicked) to respond to your massive onslaught; there's plenty of RS, and long before any formal "consensus procedures" had become "mandatory" (as you seem to think they are), that established the separate titles for Indo-Canadian, Pakistani Canadian, South Asian Canadian, Bangladeshi Canadian long ago, likewise as to why there are no "ethnic groups by city" titles within WPCanada....but you, it seems, have only been reading up to find passage/things to use to "prove your case" and overturn long-standing titles , and deluge them with indiscriminate masses of information to pad your "contributions", when not playing Wiktionary-man while building "Terminology" sections to continue your UNDUE disputatiousness in article-space.
@Antidiskriminator: analyzed your peremptory behaviour re your POV forking of Indo-Canadians in British Columbia re Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver and your disrespect towards me from the start. Are you writing a thesis on "ethnic groups in Canada" or WHAT? As I've said before more than once, I think your adminship should be revoked, and in this case you have carpet-bombed so many articles with your ideas/cites that they have become unreadable, as have all discussions you have firebombed with your argumentations and SYNTHifications. I dont' have 24 hours a day, apparently as you do, to go research more citations....or indeed to read t he massive amounts of things you have cited but cannot possibly have read in the timeframe, or to analyze your stitching-together of the tidbits you have selected to "prove your case". You have no common sense, no manners, and are disregarding what TITLE and other policy says about long-standing titles and also WP:NCET. You have been a WP:BRAT and behave like a WP:DICK towards me with lines like I "have no place in this discussion" above. This is WP:CANADA and I've been here a very long time and you are, to me, nothing more than a kid in Texas fresh out of school with a bad attitude and a whole lot of arrogance as to your ability to amass (if not read, and think abou) citation after citation after citation. More and more and more I'm starting to realize that you are doing all this for attention and that you enjoy wasting other people's time with nonsense and "go find me citations" i.e. "go waste time on my agenda"..... all other Canadians on this board have ignored you, I'm starting to think I should too; maybe someone else will have the patience to deal with your juvenalia, I'm a year away from sixty (over three times as old as you) and don't need high blood pressure because of some pup from the US who is obsessing over ethno titles in another country that he doesn't know diddly-squat about first-hand.
Maybe some other WPCANADA editor will take you on...you are disruptive, arrogant, obstinate and increasingly patronizing. It's YOU, not me, who "has no place here". Your close-mindedness about what you already have decided should be the case has filtered what you have been looking for, and you have been looking for nothing but things that supprot you; that's SYNTH and OR and you've been anti-AGF from day one. I'm going WP:DISENGAGE and you can go around boasting you drove Skookum1 away, I'm sure someone will be impressed; your wasting-my-time has kept me from working on articles that are in need of improving, and also from my lunch. I dislike ANIs or would have launched one on you a week ago; increasingly that's where you belong, and you will no doubt do hwat you have done here and on ten other pages - bludgeon, bombard and make demands on other peoples' time. Go merge them all, then - every Canadian ethno-article into Canadians because, per WP:NCET that's who we are and what we call ourselves....wikipedia's obsession with ethnicity and race is very un-Canadian and I've had enough.....
@Bearcat:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Carrite:, @Resolute:, @Ground Zero:, @The Interior:, @Moxy:, maybe one of your may have something useful to say towards this kid, all I see is someone hell-bent on changing Canadian titles to suit his sophomoric obsession and war on someone who got in his way for his "business" (he means hobby) of crating ethnicity by city" articles....there's too many pages to list them all, and he's even more long-winded than I've been at my worst. Iv'e spent days wrangling with him and seeing him drown out comments of others on merge discussions with his repetitive obstinacy and "have better things to do than "go run and play fetch" to play his game any further. I got blocked for a lot less than this crap he's pulling, and am tired of instruction creeps making demands to do this or that as if it were mandatory or must be done right now. I'm getting too old for this, and once again Wikipedian nonsense is eating up my health and diverting me from my own writing activities...I have no vested interest in any of these titles, otehr than protecting Canadian articles/namespace from stupidity and ethno/political agendas, but apparently he has a vested interest of some kind about "ethnicity by city" and an obsession with definitions that belongs in wiktionary, not taking up huge new sections in half-a-dozen articles. Skookum1 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This has gotten so ridiculous I'm going to de-watchlist this page, and the others...since no other Canadians are braving this guy's walls of text why don't we just let him rewrite the whole of Canadian article-space from his desktop in Texas. And WhisperToMe, I'm gonna de-watchlist all the other places you've been bludgeoning with your "ideas" (your own ideas) and blockading discussions with the same old shit over and over, and you can have your way with them. I'm not the first Wikipedian to throw up their hands about inanity like yours, and Inote others here aren't bothering with you...so I'm not going to bother with you any longer, and you can keep your insulting 'you don't belong here' to brag about to your friends. That you originally came here demanding that more content on the Air India bombing be placed in whatever article it was seems to have been the start of your campaign to war with Canadian article-space. Fine, have at it, and be sure to brag to your professors that you showed up a top-400 (no. 383 actually) editor; maybe it'll sound good in the thesis you're so obviously working on. My patience, such as it is, is done. You've been so succesful I'm dewatchlisting my own country's wikiproject talkpage, right after I sign off.Skookum1 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment - While I personally find the term Indo-Canadian to be confusing, that does seem to be the established term for "Canadians hailing from the Indian subcontinent." All other sub regional names (South Asian, East Asian) should be redirects; if one is writing about a specific ethnicity's connection to Canada, that ethnicity being part of modern India, that should be a free-standing article (presuming sourcing exists). I've got no dog in this fight — my own opinion of how WP's naming principles should be applied in this case. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment 1: we should not be surprised that there is a lack of clarity or consistency over ethological terms. That is commonplace, e.g., "Asian" meaning "Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese" in Canada, while meaning "Indian/Bangladeshi/Pakistani" in the UK. I don't expect that we in Misplaced Pages are goign to be able to sort this out in a way that will keep everyone happy.
Comment 2: Above all, we should not be creating new terminiology in an attempt to create clarity. "South Asian" is a reasonable term although it is less common, but I have never, ever, heard "South Asian Canadian", although I don't know why not. It is probably just too long for people to use commonly. I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be trying to promote the use of a new term. "Indo-Canadian" simply is the commonly used term. The citizenship distinction between Indo-Canadians and South Asians I think is arbitrary, and I don't think it is ueful. Citizenship does not impact one's culture. While it may impact one's self-identification, it doesn't impact how otehrs see these people. A more useful distinction (though not one that I think we should make here) is between Canadian-born and foreign-born.
Comment 3: I appreciate WhisperToMe's attempt to get the discussion focussed on what terms are used in reliable sources. We should also keep in mind the principles behind WP:COMMONNAME, though, and not use academic terms. The article title does not have to address ambiguity in the subject matter. If there is ambiguity, that should be clarified in the introductory paragraphs.
Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Misplaced Pages. Ground Zero | t13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Should all biographies of Canadian people carry the talk page banner for this project? Or all whose description as Canadian may be problematic? Or fewer than that?
Project banners are typically fairly informal. If you think there is a decent tie to Canada, then feel free to add the banner. I'm not sure if there is a definitive list of Canadian authors from a government-related agency, however. Resolute17:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
If anybody's looking for a make-work project, I've just come across a major clusterfuck that will require some disambiguation cleanup.
For much of Misplaced Pages's history, Toronto's main alt-weekly newspaper was located at the title Now (magazine) (even though it is technically a newspaper rather than a magazine in format, people do generally say "Now Magazine" when they're talking about it.) Approximately a month ago, however, it appears that an editor from the UK arbitrarily moved it to Now (newspaper), and hijacked the resulting redirect to point to Now (UK magazine) instead — but failed to correct any of the 500+ inbound wikilinks that were already using the title to point to the one in Toronto rather than the one in the UK.
I've changed the target of the redirect to the disambiguation page at Now — like it or not, the UK one does have a legitimate enough claim to the title that we can't just take it back arbitrarily — but the links that wanted the Toronto publication will need to be corrected to point to Now (newspaper). I've started fixing some of them in AWB, but would appreciate some assistance so that I'm not sitting here all night doing this by myself. That said, if you are willing to participate, do be careful — I have already come across one article that did intend the British magazine, so please do a quick context check before changing a link.
That's a little confusing. Newspaper or not, it is actually called "NOW Magazine", which in recent years is shortened to "NOW" (all caps). Why not just call the article "NOW Magazine"? TFD (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Ground Zero's point, another problem is that the British magazine would still have an equal claim to that title too. There's just no way that the Canadian one can be given any title that includes "Now" and "magazine" without also including a geographical disambiguator (i.e. "Canadian" or "Toronto") as well — any version that fails to include a geographic point of disambiguation has to be a redirect to the dab page rather than an article about either publication.
Sure, the article can still be moved to another title, if somebody's got a better one to propose — but it can't just retake the old title, or any version of the old title that doesn't have a geographic disambiguator added to it too. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Help with an article?
Can anyone help me with the Mary Steinhauser article? It looks like she was apparently fairly big news when she was held hostage and shot, but I'm running into some issues with sourcing due to it happening in the 70s. I'm trying to piece stuff together, but it looks like her death resulted in some changes in the overall prison and legal system. I figured that asking here would be a good start, since this happened in Canada and some of you might remember this or know something about it. Or at least know where to look for the sources. The official website run by her sister has a lot of news clippings, so that's helpful, but not all of them have all of the info. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It really needs some editing for clarity and so on, since I'm having to piece all of this together as I go. I'm really afraid of getting something wrong. It does look like this was fairly notable, but again- it needs some overall editing from people more familiar with the event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)11:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried searching for sources on ProQuest, Google News Archive, or other news archival websites? ProQuest has about 60 articles from the Toronto Star with the name as search parameter (some unrelated to the subject), but as I do not have full access, I can't provide details about the content. Google News archive has about 300 results, the initial few of which seem like good sources. A Google Books search seems to yield a few good sources too, but also a bunch of conspiracy theory entries. Google Scholar has a few entries, mostly making passing mention of her. Mindmatrix17:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I am finding sources, but mostly it's just that I'm not entirely familiar with what happened so I've made more than a few errors while editing and I'm worried that there may be more in there that I haven't detected but that someone more familiar with the topic may pick out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Over the past three weeks I've created a significant number of "(Year) establishments in X" categories, which I've also been populating. A few other editors have also been sifting articles into these categories, and also creating similar categories. This raises the question of how to properly deal with settlements. Here's an example I noted in a message on my talk page:
Unfortunately, some settlements are difficult to categorize by this system. For example, King, Ontario was settled by Europeans in 1798, but the first documented info I found states 1800, and it was incorporated in 1851. This ignores the native Wyandot occupation of the area preceding it all, the French exploration of the area (with campsites etc.), and use of routes through the area and sites within during the early fur trading period.
In that message, I forgot to mention that Yonge Street was established in the early 1790s through the township, and (documented) patent letters for land first issued in 1797. This neglects pre-European settlements, which Skookum1 suggests on my talk page could be sorted into Category:Settlements in Canada established in pre-Contact times or some such.
Anyway, what to do? Here's a short list of options:
don't use these categories at all
use incorporation date as the year of establishment
use first documented settlement date as the year of establishment, and first incorporation to sift into new category tree (for example, Category:1967 settlement incorporations in Canada–from a similar proposal by Hwy43 on my talk page–or a somewhat differently-named category)
some other sorting technique
Given the massive effort required to deal with year-based categories, I'd rather get this right the first time before we collectively invest our time sorting articles. Mindmatrix16:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
While we should always be sensitive to the fact that Canada didn't suddenly begin to exist the moment Europeans trod onto it, I think we should use date of incorporation as year of establishment (and, ideally, have "Settlements in Canada incorporated in X" subcats or some such thing). King, Ontario may have been inhabited for eons before anyone even called it King, but the legal entity was established in 1850. It's not perfect, but I believe it's the only way that these types of catgories can be used consistently and in a manner that avoids debates over who arrived when.Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is not all communities (settlements) incorporate as municipalities. It alienates unincorporated communities, which were all established at some point through a less formal process. Hwy43 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Given the problems with the alternatives, it might be unavoidable that such categories can't be used for unincorporated settlements. Doesn't really "alienate" them. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Tangentially to the above discussion, how should we handle establishments of organizations etc. in an area that didn't geopolitically exist at the time of establishment. For example, we currently have Category:1857 establishments in Ontario, which is incorrect (it should be Category:1857 establishments in Canada West; I'll address this one soon). Moreover, Alberta pre-1905 was substantially smaller than when it joined confederation; Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba have all acquired more land over time, and the Northwest Territories has lost significant chucks of land. Given that we have categories for Upper and Lower Canada, and pre-Confederation Newfoundland, should we also create those for the districts of Keewatin, Athabasca, Alberta, et al. Do we go further back, to New France? What about pre-Confederation top-level categories, such as Category:1857 establishments in Canada. Mindmatrix16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I've been sifting Nunavut-related establishments in Northwest Territories categories if they occurred before 1999. I think we should do the same with other files, such as northern Ontario settlements established before Confederation. Mindmatrix16:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about what geopolitical context existed at time of establishment. I think our readers would be more interested about the current geopolitical context. For the pre-1905 Saskatchewan establishment categories, we could simply write an explanatory sentence at the cat that technically they were established in the geopolitical context of the North-West Territories (as it was called then) but the current geopolitical context is used. Hwy43 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
At a certain point, one needs at least a Masters in Canadian History to be able to follow the historical evolution of current Canadian jurisdictions. I agree with Hwy43 on this one. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
suffice to say that current political geography (NB btw, "geopolitics" is a somewhat different term, sez he who's been a student in the field) has to be used or "FOO in Canada" about events in pre-Confederation BC would not be used; same with pre-1949 Newfoundland. Similarly, the site of Whitehorse was in the short-lived expansion of the Stikine Territory but in wiki usage it has to be stated "in Canada". And re pre-Confederation BC, currently there's no by-year cat for the 1860s and 1870s (other than maybe one subcat, 1861 I think) but items from 1870 and 1871 (to a certain date) should also be put in Category:Pre-Confederation British Columbia).
Also a bit tangential but because this is about establishment-date categories, and bypassing the natives-were-there-first line of argument, somewhere like Dewdney, British Columbia was first settled by a non-native in 1861 and has that establishment cat....but it was incorporated in 1892, then disincorporated in 1906 (we have no "disestablishments cats")...there is no separate Municipality of Dewdney article nor should there be (it included more than modern Dewdney); but there's not yet an infobox on it; if one were placed are there fields for "first established" then "incorporated in" and if needed "disincorporated in"? Seems like overkill but in a lot of cases it was a long time before incorporation came along (Lillooet was first established as a non-native settlement in 1858, then a townsite laid out and current name adopted in 1860...incorporation wasn't until the mid-20th Century).
Also on the subject of establishment cats, all IRs have a particular date they were designated on, some such as those created by the Douglas Treaties (not all of which remain today) were before the Indian Act, and while most will have Indian Act-associated dates there are others since whether via Crown Commissions or "deals" such as how Peckquaylis, which had been the St. Mary's Indian Residential School and its grounds was transferred to joint administration of 23 bands of the Sto:lo.....in many cases it may be hard to find out the date of the establishment, or as with Peckquaylis, the date of transfer to IR status, but so far I don't recall seeing establishment cats on any IR articles, though maybe on some town/locality articles the IR titles may redirect to. Same goes for FN governments themselves of course.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Cite Hansard#Citation format
He's asked this elsewhere, he wants to know if the Canadian Census gives by-FN-ethnicity listings, and the answer is "no".Skookum1 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Or certain ethnicity/nation/First Nation pages which give the groups' own estimates. The ongoing problem with population-by-reserve is that many reserves/bands are more than one ethnicity on the reserve/in the band. Works OK more or less in regions where reserves are "monoethnic" like in the Maritimes re the Mi'kmaq; the other issue in terms of counting up ethnicities is that many bands don't allow census takers on their reserves so the "official" count (the Canadian government count) is not complete, whether INAC or StatCan for the source....and of course only status natives are counted on INAC, not people of the ethnicity who do not have status, and many people, Metis in particular but others also, are part-Cree but not counted by any Cree government. Bands' own figures, when on their sites, IMO should be regarded as just as "official" as any Canadian government figure, in that bands are "official" and also sovereign in many cases, by declaration or imputation; point being is they would have more correct information than a scattershot census that for things like language and ethnicity is only a 1 in 10 sample (before the long form was cancelled by the current federal regime), and in which not all reserves are accessed by census-takers...and no distinction between e.g. Ulkatcho and Tsilhqot'in is made re the Anahim Lake FN or between Denesuline and Tlicho and Cree on various Alberta and SK reserves. Council of the Haida Nation figures vary from anything StatCan has to say about Haida Gwaii, for example....and even then some status natives living in that census division, on or off reserve, might be "North American Indian" i.e. from nearly any FN or NA group on the continent.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
coverage of forest industry/sector in BC sorely lacking.
Having jut created the article Last Post Fund I was looking through their website here, there are some good photographs there from 1910 and the inaugural ceremony. Based on {{PD-Canada}} it looks like they should be public domain, and suitable for upload to commons, am I correct in this? Photograph copyright is not my strong suit. --kelapstick12:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
TransCanada restructuring, Energy East, Kinder Morgan et al
The TransCanada Pipelines article, or rather where it redirects to (at present little more than a stock listing/advert) ....re this restructuring matter and that there were two companies rather than one (or ? I dunno it's confusing) needs expansion and. The relationship to Kinder Morgan isn't in the article, nor is there one on Energy East pipeline (which shouldn't need that dab, as Energy East redirects to a page with a Spanish title and that's not PRIMARYTOPIC of "Energy East" IMO. http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/24/Kinder-Morgan-Breaking-Law-Economist-Alleges/ This article addresses the restructuring issue re the NEB]; corporate SEO and mainstream media mostly working from corporate press releases means that's not in the first pages, if at all, in the googlesearch above. This article is only about their Energy East p.r. campaign but what it says needs to be somewhere and should be noted as a caution to watch for POV/COI activities on all connected articles. I'm seriously tired of political battles in Misplaced Pages and am trying to keep myself to geography and history articles and the like (in order to protect my aging health, partly) but wanted to field these here so that someone can put those links to use and also straighten out or clarify/connect that "nest" of related articles.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I should add that the above are connected to the ongoing politicking but I'm fatigued with political articles and trying to stay away from POV battlegrounds for a while; but noting that Burnaby Mountain does not yet have a section on the demonstrations and arrests there and a separate 2014 Burnaby Mountain protests is kinda called for; (the date being needed because of the history of protests and strikes at SFU in times past).Skookum1 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Was a bit taken aback by that title, don't think I've seen one start with /+/ before.....it's pronounced as "Plus 15" and methinks there's a UE/NUMBERS rule re TITLE no? Also not indicating what it is seems strange; if it's commonly referred to as "the skyway" for example that should be in the title; is it really MOSTCOMMON for Calgarians to refer to this as "+15" or is that just a "brand" for the project? I found this while searching for the Bantrel Tower, re this matter.Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
From WP:TSC - There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > | { } _, this is primarily because of the way Wikimarkup works. I don't think there is any restriction on starting an article with +, although it translates to %2B in the URL because of technical limitations of URLs (the same is true when there is a + inline with the title, similar to Peg + Cat). There are a few articles that start with +, such as +44 (band), for example (whereas +44 redirects to Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom). As for common name, I cant really say what that is, however there is a trailblazer marker in the picture at the top of the page that calls it +15, so it's "officially" called (or labeled) that in some cases. --kelapstick13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
subcat name for gold-bearing creeks (or rather placer mining, as not all were gold)
There is for sure grounds for a placer mining category, although I am not sure what the exact wording of the title should be.--kelapstick13:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I had a look in the mining techniques category and was surprised there was no category for placer mining, that is needed for sure, I will go and generate it.--kelapstick14:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a note that I've taken on the task of completely redoing this school's wiki, since it's currently in a terrible condition. It hasn't received a major update in 3 years it seems. Work will start tomorrow, December 11th. I'm new to Misplaced Pages as an editor, and am still learning a few things, so I'm just posting this so that while I'm working on the article and once I'm done, someone more with more experience can do a quality check.
any online archive for CBC other than their own site?
I've been trying to look up news coverage for the Mohawk Civil War of 1990 and expected I'd find something on CBC's site for Akwesasne but nope, most recent news items is 2012 only.....and google news ain't much better. As I've noted elsewhere, Izzy Asper ordered CanWest destroy all his acquisitions' archives, so not gonna find anything from major papers, unless in the G&M's digital storehouse, which I can't access as not a university student or whatever.....same goes for finding out the date of the military takeover of Newsworld that same year and for contemporary sources for Oka et al in general; must be something out there, other than in city hard-copy archives and fiches....suffice to say "history has been deleted" and I'm curious how to get around that; everything from Oka to the Meech Lake and FTA elections and more are "not to be found" online......much has been deliberately swept into the dustbin.Skookum1 (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that the Mohawk Civil War bluelink wrongly goes to Oka Crisis and shouldn't. But explaining that, or writing the needed article, ain't possible without citations or things to read...so far haven't really cruised blogspace..but that should still show up there you'd think.Skookum1 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I did manage to find the Toronto Star's archives and some search results , but can only see abstracts; I searched for both "Akwesasne" and "Mohawk Civil War" and got some abstracts....maybe enough to start the "story of the article" but still in need of a cite for the title....it may be in one of the articles I can't see, I remember the term well...this was months before Oka. Also looking for news copy about the seizure/takeover of Newsworld by the military during the crisis....and the original news copy about the SQ fatality, as what was around about that does not match what the coroner's report later said. There should be lots of coverage in US papers...Albany NY and Messina NY....what else I remember may not be out there - the US military taking control of the reservation on the US side, for one thing.Skookum1 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Changing red links to blue
There is a ever changing IP that makes edits like this and this. They are changing the red link to the First Nation or Council article to a blue link for a community. In the first example the community is not even the one associated with the First Nation. However, more importantly by doing that they hide which First Nations don't as yet have an article. I think it's a better idea to have the red link than going to the community, even if it is the correct one. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
government and community articles should be separate so yes we need to see those redlinks; there's lots in the FN categories where the govt name goes to a reserve, and where reserve and community articles and such are merged (when they shouldn't be); so a lot of govt articles are currently redirected titles. List of First Nations governments I don't think exists; those within Category:First Nations governments and its subcats that are italicized should be looked at for separation/expansion, and similarly with italicized titles in reserve and community cat hierarchies occur.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I just had a look through the government categories....seems I've straightened most of them out....the ON, SK, MB, QC reserves and communities do need straightening out yet thoughSkookum1 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
POV tag re Prosperity Mine coverage on Taseko Mines article
WP:FORUMSHOPPING again huh? the RM was only a month ago and here you are trying to overturn it again with yet more "walls of cites". You lost the RM, consensus has spoken, now work on bringing the article into useful shape and drop the renaming campaign; it's against guidelines to try to do this, as you should know.Skookum1 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That was the point of my post; he's the one shotgunning notices time and again on multiple boards and talkpages, and writing at length even more than I'm known to do to advance his agenda; there's so many of them I can't keep track of them; and so repetitive and cite-heavy that I de-watchlisted even this page, and some others among the many, and it's always the same resistance and campaign to "get it his way". This is the only page I've replied to his seven or eight notifications out there, can't remember where the other was.Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"Vancouver usage" challenged
Note the discussion about the usage of Vancouver in Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. which I was meaning to post here but have been having system issues, or on WP:Vancouver and WP:BC where that's been gone over before; as also with the meaning of "Indians" in Canada. Re this section's title, Chinatown, Vancouver and Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia) and other articles already exist, and Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia and Chinatown subsections on various articles; "Vancouver"'s standalone notability in the Chinese context is Greater Vancouver's, but neither historically nor in current terms is the "Chinese world" in the Lower Mainland separate from that of other Chinese in the province; it's only because of his mass of content clips of UNDUE nature and his ongoing thrust about additions, while neglecting the consensus-spoken reality to improve the article. I see no reason (nor have others) why Vancouver, whether defined by city boundary, or the GVRD boundary, or by a vague international usage which includes Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and even Gibsons and Whistler; Misplaced Pages should not be so vague in its usages, and needs be specific. And sources can be wrong, especiallyabout sloppy usages and bad geography. That being said, re this name-dispute announcement, the RM was only a month ago, all these notifications are improper and against guidelines.Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
amazing online historical resource for BC: online city directories
Someone I know who's also into BC /PacNW history just posted this on FB and immediately I recognized it as a rich trove of details on early BC towns up to 1955; Vancouver Public Library's fully digitized City Directories from 1860-1955. I've just begun exploring it now....Skookum1 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
As there is a link to the list of nicknames, I would think the most prominent one(s) (which may be difficult to determine) would be more appropriate than listing them all.--kelapstick15:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
This is what I am thinking..infobox is for regurgitating content from the article...not for OR by bloggers and those trying to sell newspapers. Just because a source can be-found does not mean it merits inclusion... as we are looking for Encyclopedic content. (WP:NOTEVERYTHING) -- Moxy (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Take for example Toronto, I have frequently heard it called (by numerous people/media) T.O. (and subsequently T-Dot), The Big Smoke, an Hogtown. However A city within a park is referenced on Name of Toronto to the parks and trails website, which says that it is a city within a park, rather than a nickname (and the neutrality of it being a nickname by said organization would generally be in question). --kelapstick17:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should list every nickname that has ever been used, no matter how infrequently or by whom or for what purpose. Edmonton's list now includes far too many nicknames (11), including some that have limited use or were created for disparaging purposes. Note that there's no consistency across Canadian cities since a sampling of articles on major Canadian cities shows Montreal with no nicknames, and Halifax and Quebec City with only one. Meters (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Only very common nicknames should be included, I would say. As it is, most of these wouldn't actually qualify in my view. For instance, "Gateway to the North" and "City of Champions" are marketing slogans, not nicknames. "Redmonton" and "Deadmonton" are derogatory epithets, not nicknames. Etc. Resolute19:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Generally, I would think that the principles of WP:GNG should be applied. Although not specifically designed for content within an article, it does lay out the basics of determining what is notable and what is trivial. The determining factor as to whether a nickname is sufficiently notable for inclusion shouldn't be simply that a source can be found wherin the nickname is used, but that a source exists that specifically discusses that nickname. For instance, where Toronto is concerned, we have articles such as this one that discuss the use of the "T-Dot" term. That would be good evidence that "T-Dot" is a notable and widely-used term. Other sources discuss the whole topic in a broader sense, such as this one. Pyrope20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Good start, but media coverage that discusses a nickname does not necessarily mean that a term is widely used. Deadmonton is a problem. It was coined as a derogatory nickname by a foreign columnist or reporter (who was booked into a hotel in the middle of nowhere) during his visit to the 2001 World Championships in Athletics. So, of course the use of the nickname by the journalist was widely discussed in local media, but that does not mean the nickname itself was actually in use. If a journalist called a notable Canadian politician Mr. Scum Sucking Dirtbag, the resultant coverage would probably make the incident notable, but the coverage would not show that "Scum Sucking Dirtbag" was a widely-used nickname for the politician in question. There's a subsequent history of attempting to justify use of the term Deadmonton because of a one-year spike in murder rates, so this is not so cut and dried.
I don't know what the best solution to choosing which nicknames to list in the infobox is, but having 10 or more nicknames listed is not way to go. It would be far better to have a section in the article devoted to discussing the various nicknames than to cram them all into the infobox. Meters (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In reference to Meters last sentence, I agree. There are already pages devoted to the Name of Toronto and Name of Montreal that list nicknames and discuss some as well as an article on Nicknames of Vancouver. I think this would be beneficial for larger cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg, etc. For cities such as Fox Creek, Alberta there would be no need to have a whole new page and would be fine with the one in the infobox.Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Only nicknames that can be reliably sourced should be noted. For example, one of the nicknames that was removed from Greater Sudbury pursuant to this discussion was "Sudz" — and while this nickname can certainly be confirmed by a simple Google search on "Sudbury Sudz", it exists only in user-generated discussion forums and hashtags, and isn't actually found in any source that would actually meet Misplaced Pages's referencing standards. That's exactly the kind of nickname that indeed we shouldn't be publishing, lest we open the door to random editors adding entirely nonexistent nicknames that they created themselves — we should rightly include only nicknames that can be verified in reliable sources. But the problem is that we've had that discussion before, but people keep adding unsourced and self-invented nicknames anyway — keeping this clean requires more vigilance than most editors have actually been putting into it. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Vaselineeeeeeee that there's no need to separate out he nicknames for those places with only a few. Just to clarify, I was suggesting a separate section in the article to discuss nicknames for cities with many, rather than a separate article, but either works.
I don't think that simply requiring reliable sources for nicknames addresses the problem of listing too many nicknames in the infobox. It's a given that not-reliably sourced nicknames can and should be removed, but what about cases where there are simply a large number of reliably sourced nicknames for a city? Meters (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Omg no.. not a section for nicknames ...looking for encyclopedic content added to these articles. Having the first sources people see being POV media editorials and blogs really reduces the integrity of any article. Keep all the B class trivia in its own article. -- Moxy (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
so your suggestion is to have a separate article? As I said, I'm fine with either solution, as long as we stop stuffing nicknames into the infobox. And I don't think "POV media editorials and blogs" would qualify as reliable sources, so they shouldn't be in the infobox, a separate section, or a separate article. A source is either reliable or it isn't. Meters (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
My preferred solution would be to limit infobox nicknames to a small number (say two, or three at most) in common usage and just to ignore any others (no section, no article) but I doubt that people could ever agree on a means of determining the most common. Meters (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
One problem with sources is they wind up retrenching names that aren't really valid as ongoing nicknames but because of academic blather about the term and that one columnist/blogger abroad uses it as the title of his column has wound up giving it more weight than it deserves; and allows for inclusion of wrong, often POV, assertions about it. More actual nicknames for Vancouver like "Van", "YVR", "the 604", "Vancity" and "Big Smoke" are harder to source, as they are not studied or pumped-up avidly as "Hongcouver" has been, even though it's long dead in the water in Vancouver itself, except in an ironic sense - and not happily on either side of the ethnic fence. That section linked is overkill, like much else in that article. UNDUE in the extreme. And not really a nickname; not in use in ordinary speech on a daily basis.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just amended the passage about it in Nicknames of Vancouver to refer to that overbuilt bit on the CCinBC article, to qualify its modern context. Its actual origins, said one long-ago article, in the National Geographic as I recall but maybe a Vancouver Sun or other local article, were with freshly-arrived Hong Kong youth making a brag; when it hit the papers, the Chinese political and business crowd denounced it as discriminatory; even though "we" (regular Vancouverites) didn't like it anymore than they did. Now it's an academic fief...but not a nickname as such. More like a "tag" that's taken on a life of its own. BTW if the Nicknames for Vancouver article covers it sufficiently, the section on the CCinBC page is sometning like a POV fork; but then the add-er of that content has serious POV issues as well as OWNership issues, 'nuff said for now, but "when is a nickname not a nickname?". When it's being used for propaganda reasons and academic tirades, I submit.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
About the Vancouver nickname 'Vansterdam'; I think it originated during the era of the former premier of B.C. Bill Vander Zalm who was of Dutch descent. A play of words combining Vancouver, Amsterdam and Vander Zalm.-- Kayoty (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No. If the term was even around then, and I'm not sure it was, its main derivation is the Vansterdam Cafe on West Hastings near Cambie. There's lots of Dutch-descent/origin Canadians in Vancouver; but Vander Zalm is famously a Surreyite; the name has nothing to do with him, never has.Skookum1 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned above, List of city nicknames in Canada exists. It was once garbage with a vast amount of unsourced, OR-based and unacceptably sourced (blogs, forums, ad sites, etc.) entries. It was partially cleaned up and then culled over an 18-month period to comprise only referenced items, most of which were based on their usage by reliable sources. With that article now in reasonable shape, any city nickname that has widespread usage has a home there so long as it is verified by an acceptable reliable source.
Limiting city infoboxes to a specified amount of nicknames (one, two or three) is a reasonable idea but is utopian. It is difficult to achieve. How do we measure which three get to remain? If all are measurable, what happens if the fourth is a negligible hair behind the third?
That being said, infoboxes are intended to summarize content that is actually embedded within articles. If a reliably-sourced nickname is (or can be) worked into the prose of an article, I think there is justification to then include it within the infobox. Right away, that would drop nine of the eleven at Edmonton leaving “Festival City” and “Gateway to the North”, though “City of Champions” could easily be worked into the prose of that article and retained in the infobox. (Note it was coined by former mayor Laurence Decore, who cited the community's response to the 1987 tornado as evidence that Edmonton was a "city of champions," which later became the city's official slogan.) Employing this approach to all major cities, the balance of nicknames could be wikilinked to Nicknames of ''city'' or List of city nicknames in Canada.
South of the border, there are inconsistent approaches throughout the U.S. I’ve looked at all the articles of the American cities listed here. Most cities have between three and nine nicknames listed in their infoboxes. A few have one or two. One has none, though two are mentioned in the article's prose (Austin, Texas). Here are three interesting approaches observed to consider:
a. two cities simply used the {{Main|Nicknames of "city"}} template within the infobox's nickname parameter in place of any nicknames – see New York City and Washington, D.C.;
c. at Chicago, it uses a similar approach but with multiple nicknames... "The Windy City, Chi-Town, The Second City, City of Broad Shoulders, and others found at List of nicknames for Chicago".
I think that is a great (b) and (c) are great ideas, and agree there could be say three nicknames, and a wikilink to "more", which is the link to the list of Canadian city nicknames. I like it. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: just a point of clarification. I'm not suggesting an arbitrary maximum of three. Just in Edmonton's case, under the scenario of nicknames that could be explained within the prose of the article, I think three would be appropriate for that article. Hwy43 (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we can add a line or two to WP:CANSTYLE, setting out the practice exemplified by (b) and (c) above. We'd also want to reference Pyrope's WP:GNG comment above, where we need more than examples of the name being used (e.g. the thankfully failed efforts to add "The 613" to the Ottawa infobox]]) but rather reliable sources discussing how the name is currently and broadly used to reference the City. Moreover, we should address Skookum1's issue (similar to the case where people tried to add "Tehronto" to the list of nicknames at Toronto), whereby the name needs to be widely used for the city generally, not in reference to particular aspect(s) of its economy or people. There should also be mention as to whether derogatory nicknames, and municipal slogans, can be included (e.g. perhaps we could put an end to the perennial "Scarberia" debate). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Skeezix1000. Derogatory nicknames such as "Deadmonton" and "Negitivipeg" should not be used. I also agree that "Tehrono" is not a nickname of Toronto, yet just a way people pronounce it. This can also be said for Calgary. Nobody says "Cal-Gary", people tend to say "Cal-gry" because it has been an accustomed way of saying the name, rather than a nickname. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree that pronunciations are not nicknames. My reference to Tehronto/Tehranto above was actually a reference to a nickname used in reference to the fact that so many monied Iranian immigrants were for a time choosing to settle in Toronto (a portmanteau of Toronto and Tehran). I don't remember the details, but there was at least one editor who felt very strongly that Tehronto/Tehranto belonged in the infobox. One difficulty we had at the time was that the Tehronto/Tehranto nickname had been discussed in the mainstream media, so the editor in question took the position that it was more than adequately sourced. Whether used positively or derogatorily, nicknames such as Hongcouver and Tehronto don't really refer to the city broadly, but rather refer to one demographic aspect. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, just thought. We should make a change to the {{infobox settlement}} so that there is a like that reads "| advertising_slogan=" so that things like "The City of Champions" (Edmonton) and "Polar Bear Capital of the World" (Churchill) could be kept separate from proper nicknames. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq21:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a significant distinction between slogans (generated by the municipality, a tourism authority or some other public authority) and actual nicknames. For example, "technically beautiful" is not a nickname. Whether some slogans might evolve over time into nicknames (City of Champions?) is a question for the sources. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not incidental that the rebranding name of the board of the GVRD, "Metro Vancouver", is pushed by the media to refer to the GVRD as "Metro" as if that was its name; and in Toronto the media use that same term. Not 'in the metro' or 'in the Metro region', but "in Metro". But that's rebranding not just taken hold but pushed by the media machine (who are the organ of the advertising/p.r. industry, necessarily). It's irritating to hear "weather in Metro today will be" or "citizens of Metro". Way too brave new world for me. Is a nickname? No more than "the pause that freshes" is a name for 7-up. The Uncola etc.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with Skeezix1000's suggestion of incorporating the consensus outcome of this into WP:CANSTYLE. I suggest we confirm a consensus approach first here (unless we feel we have already), followed then by sidebar discussions (such as whether derogatory nicknames can be included). Hwy43 (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The nickname field appears in the infobox next to the flag, coat of arms, and motto, all official emblems. I feel that the nickname needs to be relatively official, and in wide usage, whether it is promotional or not. The infobox is a summary and a snapshot of the article, and should not list every nickname that can be reliably sourced. 117Avenue (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@117Avenue: good observation about where that field is presented. Makes me wonder if the original intent of that field was to be inclusive of unofficial nicknames and official nicknames (i.e., official slogans). Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it was in discussions on Talk:Blackbeard or if I'm remembering Bluebeard, on Talk:Gilles de Rais, such that someone had used some obscure academicist term in lieu of "nickname" or "sobriquet" and fought off those last two terms; can't remember what was settled on; the lexically anal around Misplaced Pages will use obscure terms when common ones aren't good enough for them.....so "slogans, nicknames, branding names, sobriquets and " is more like it.Skookum1 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
117Avenue. I agree with you about them being in wide usage but I'm not so sure about being official plus it may be difficult to source either. Both "The Big E" and "E-Town" for Edmonton have sources from the Journal and the Sun. However, there is no indication that either is widely used or in any way official. I looked through the cities official site and couldn't find anything to indicate that they use a nickname, not even the Champions one. Hwy43. Yes just slogan would work. Perhaps the list could be separated into sections for nicknames, slogans, etc. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq12:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Didn't Edmonton recently dump the City of Champions slogan? Or am I imagining that?
I think nicknames, by their very nature, are unofficial (although once commonly used, they might be adopted and made part of a slogan). If we are going to have slogans, I think we need two separate and distinct fields, one for official slogans, one for nicknames. And for the slogans, we need to decide if we are limiting it to the current slogan generally used by the municipality (often there isn't one), or also include slogans that are used by any public authorities (tourism associations, etc.). Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I 100% agree with Skeezix1000 last post. Most nicknames by nature are unofficial. I also agree that the nickname list needs to be separated into two sections of slogans and nicknames. We could also add another field to the infobox called "slogans". However some nicknames can go both ways for example Guelph, Ontario "The Royal City" can be used either way which can be hard to distinguish between the two. Also, municipality slogans should be listed as well as tourism slogans, as I think they are important as well. Municipality slogan of Yellowknife, "The Diamond Capital of North America" is just as important as a tourism slogan for Churchill, Manitoba, "The Polar Bear Capital of the World" Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that tourism slogans can be just as important, if not more so ( I ❤ NY being the best example). But most tourism slogans are often forgettable/routinely superseded (and non-encyclopedic), whereas arguably the slogan a municipality currently uses (if there is one) has some encyclopedic value, no matter how pedestrian or dull it is. And some places have more than one tourism agency throwing out slogans into the wide world (for example, at any given point there might be four different campaigns for tourism in Ottawa). We need to figure out some way to include the good ones like "The Polar Bear Capital of the World" without inviting people to include every single "Kenora is for lovers!". --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Just noting, also, that some municipal 'titles' re rotating and not permanent; Lillooet was for a while "Logging capital of British Columbia", somewhere else has that now. Mission used to be "Strawberry Capital of Canada"; that title now I think Abbotsford has (Mission's berry industry was wiped out by the Japanese internment; they'd had 75% of the berry farms and no one else knew how to work the patches like they did) and the Great Flood of 1948. The latter was a municipal brag, the former some kidn of forest industry branding "badge of honour" or whatever; things t hat rotate like that probably shouldn't be mentioned; though historic ones like Mission have relevance in historical terms.Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Most municipal slogans are replaced over time. If it's the current slogan, not sure the fact that it will likely be replaced at some time in the future makes it less encyclopedic. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Celine Dion for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Eyes welcome on this article about a new political party. As first posted it was a copy of the party manifesto, posted by new user Canadian007 who wrote "I am one of the volunteers with the Social Justice Party Of Canada, and I added the overview of our party platform at the direction of our party president". COI has been explained to him, and Legacypac helpfully rewrote it so as not to be a copyvio, but it is still essentially the party programme, with no independent sources. None are likely yet, because Canadian007 wrote on withdrawn Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social justice party of canada:
"we have been in SUPER STEALTH mode. We are literally working around the clock this weekend to get everything rolled out Monday, we have been trying to launch everything all at once; Website, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Youtube, Tumblr, Linkdin.. "
I have moved it to Draft space, because WP is not here to help them with their launch. I have no idea whether this a serious contender likely to win seats and change the Canadian political landscape, or just another fringe group, and I guess it will take some time after the launch for that to become clear. Once there are independent sources, anyone (not connected with the party) who thinks notability has been established is welcome to move the draft back to the main space. JohnCD (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Called a "PD version", is this actually used anywhere (on the road)?
This version of Alberta's went from the one similar to NB to the left, but note the shading.
This blank version is much darker, and is listed as PD Crown Copyright.svg)
This 16 in BC is yet another shade, and is listed as PD Crown Copyright
Moved to talk:Hot Chicken sandwich
You are invited to join the discussion at .png){kind=link}